Support

A cookie is a piece of data stored by your browser or device that helps websites like this one recognize return visitors. We use cookies to give you the best experience on BNA.com. Some cookies are also necessary for the technical operation of our website. If you continue browsing, you agree to this site’s use of cookies.

Australian Oil and Gas Industry Await Petroleum Tax Overhaul (1)

Trust Bloomberg Tax for the international news and analysis
to navigate the complex tax treaty networks and global business regulations.

By Peter Hill

Australia’s oil and gas producers have waited nearly seven months for possible government
changes to a tax on the country’s massive oil and gas projects.

And the government won’t say when or if changes will be announced.

While the government is considering whether to make changes amid declining revenue
from the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT), major companies like Chevron Australia
Pty Ltd, ExxonMobil Australia Pty Ltd, Shell Australia Pty Ltd, and Woodside Energy
Limited have pushed hard against a major overhaul.

Potential reforms come amid the government’s ongoing overhaul of the country’s approach
to tackling multinational tax avoidance and its push to lower the general company
tax rate form 30 percent to a more competitive 25 percent.

“While the PRRT remains the preferred way to achieve a fair return to the community
for the extraction of petroleum resources without discouraging investment, changes
should be made to the PRRT arrangements to make them more compatible with the developments
that have taken place in the Australian oil and gas industry,” an independent review
of the tax said in a report handed to the government April 2017.

But any uncertainty over multi-billion dollar investment decisions caused by the silence
emanating from Canberra is “an acceptable trade-off” to the more important task of
“getting it right,” an industry source told Bloomberg Tax.

Revenue Drop Raises Questions

The PRRT taxes the profits of oil and gas projects at 40 percent. It has brought in
more than A$33 billion ($26 billion) in revenue since payments began in 1989, but
annual revenue has been on the decline for more than a decade.

With the tax now bringing in less than A$1 billion on average a year, the government
commissioned an independent review of the regime “to help better protect Australia’s
revenue base and to ensure that oil and gas projects are paying the right amount of
tax on their activities in Australia.” That review, the
Callaghan review, finished April 2017 and recommended a comprehensive consultative process to update
the PRRT, with any changes to factors such as transfer of deductions and uplift rates
to only apply to new projects. It also included a raft of specific administrative
reforms.

The government agreed with the Callaghan Review’s suggestion that any change to the
tax regime, and the timing of any such change, “should be the outcome of a considered,
comprehensive and consultative process.” This was because of the range of uncertainties
involved in large, long-term petroleum investments, and the need for stable fiscal
settings when seeking to influence the country’s investment attractiveness, the government
said.

Accordingly, the government asked the Treasury department to undertake a further consultation
process and advise the government on options to address the PRRT design issues raised
by the review.

In late June the Treasury released a detailed consultation paper which canvassed a
range of options and asked 35 specific questions covering those options, but only
gave four weeks for industry to respond.

The Treasurer’s office didn’t respond to questions about the status of the review.
However in a Feb. 15 email to Bloomberg Tax, it confirmed that it had given its post-review
report on any changes to the government.

Industry Critiques

An industry source also told Bloomberg Tax that there was a feeling that the Treasury
consultation paper generally betrayed “pre-conceived ideas” about the way ahead for
the PRRT regime which didn’t adequately reflect its specific design features.

“The options for consideration regarding deductibility order raised in the paper appear
to have the sole objective of increasing Government take,” ConocoPhillips Co. said
in its August
submission.

Senex Energy Ltd. asked the government in its August
submission to leave the regime “unaltered,” but also said it hadn’t had enough time to fully
gauge the impact of proposed changes.

The integrated nature of the PRRT regime was the most common element of all industry
submissions made to the Treasury during its short consultative window. And despite
the Treasury making it clear in its consultation paper that PRRT’s integrated nature
“means that all options need to be considered as a package,” many companies expressed
concern that the way the options were expressed indicated changes might be made in
isolation.

And overall, oil and gas companies are resistant to change.

Shell Australia said in its August submission it was “confident that the PRRT is working
as originally designed and intended” and that it provides an “appropriate balance
of economic rent to resource holders and risk incentives for investors.”

BHP Billiton Petroleum Pty Ltd.—which has paid over A$11.2 billion in PRRT and royalties
and excises since 2000,making it Australia’s largest PRRT payer—made it clear in its
submission that it didn’t support the Callaghan Review’s recommendations to change
the design of the PRRT. The company didn’t believe there was a compelling case to
make any changes.

A spokesperson for ConocoPhillips told Bloomberg Tax in an email March 2 that the
company engaged constructively with the review and trusts that the government “will
not impose changes that would immediately stop huge investments, costing thousands
of jobs and billions in tax revenue.”

Where to Now?

Diane Kraal, a senior lecturer at Monash University in Melbourne who participated
in the review, told Bloomberg Tax in an email Feb. 27 that “it seems politics have
now taken centre stage over whatever economic/legislative changes Treasury has recommended.”

The only practical development since the Callaghan Review concluded its review of
the PRRT was the release by the Australian Tax Office in December 2017 of a draft
ruling addressing the uncertainty over the treatment and definition of closing down
expenditure for PRRT purposes.

That draft ruling was quickly turned around into a final ruling (
TR 2018/1) released Jan. 24 and was the outcome of consultation with industry.

Noel Mullen, deputy chief executive of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration
Association in Canberra, told Bloomberg Tax in an email Feb. 13 that the PRRT has
allowed Australia to become a world leader in the development of the country’s petroleum
resources.

He added that the industry had provided both the Callaghan Review and the subsequent
Treasury consultation processes with detailed technical and project information “to
ensure the respective reviews were undertaken on a fully informed and factual basis.”

Woodside Petroleum Ltd. chairman Michael Chaney said in the company’s 2017
annual report that “it is encouraging that on this matter the Government seems to have taken a
rational approach thus far. Any changes, particularly retrospective changes, which
jeopardised future exploration and development would be very short-sighted.”

In an email to Bloomberg Tax Feb. 15, a spokesperson from Woodside declined to elaborate
on the chairman’s reference to the government’s “rational approach.”

All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to books@bna.com.

Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)

Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).

This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to research@bna.com.

Put me on standing order

Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)